Direct Consequences Rule

The harm suffered must be reasonably foreseeable, otherwise the damage is too remote.

The reasonable foreseeability principle (Wagon Mound)

You do not need to foresee a precise type of injury, just a general type of injury.

The reasonable foreseeability test does not get rid of the Eggshell Skull Principle

One must take one's victim as he finds him.

D will be liable for the full consequences of his negligent conduct, regardless of special harm caused to others.

Falling off the ladder and the need for a tetanus injection was reasonably foreseeable. However, the allergic reaction suffered as a consequence of the injection was too far fetched. The extent of the harm suffered was thus irrelevant to D's liability.

Negligent conduct does not go to D's culpability as an individual. Instead, D is penalised by virtue of having falling short of a general principle of rational agency.

When the courts hold damage to be too remote, it is fair to hold that such conduct did not cause the damage in question.

If the level of abstraction is set too low, almost nothing will be foreseeable. Vague generalisation cover almost everything, but "burns" will not include "cuts".